A person RK, an employee of the USDA, gave another person JL two unreleased varieties of grapes. Such an act was unauthorized and the said varieties yielded no fecund fruit. Neither any grapes nor any plant material was sold to any other party. Though the plants were publicly visible, they were not labeled. Moreover, they couldn’t be identified by a simple viewing of the vines. To e xplain: The applicability of USDA for patents on those two varieties of grapes.

Question

As part of its business, Kinko’s Graphics Corporation (Kinko’s) copied excerpts from books, compiled them in “packets,” and sold the packets to college students. Kinko’s did this without permission from the owners of the copyrights to the books and without paying copyright fees or royalties. Kinko’s has more than two hundred stores nationwide and reported $15 million in assets and $3 million in profits for 1989. Basic Books, Harper & Row, John Wiley & Sons, and others (plaintiffs) sued Kinko’s for violation of the Copyright Act of 1976. Plaintiffs owned copyrights to the works copied and sold by Kinko’s and derived substantial income from royalties. They argued that Kinko’s had infringed on their copyrights by copying excerpts from their books and selling the copies to college students for profit. Kinko’s admitted that it had copied excerpts without permission and had sold them in packets to students, but it contended that its actions constituted a fair use of the works in…

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 8, Problem 7BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: A person RK, an employee of the USDA, gave another person JL two unreleased varieties of grapes. Such an act was unauthorized and the said varieties yielded no fecund fruit. Neither any grapes nor any plant material was sold to any other party. Though the plants were publicly visible, they were not labeled. Moreover, they couldn’t be identified by a simple viewing of the vines.

To e xplain:The applicability of USDA for patents on those two varieties of grapes.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

As part of its business, Kinko’s Graphics Corporation (Kinko’s) copied excerpts from books, compiled them in “packets,” and sold the packets to college students. Kinko’s did this without permission from the owners of the copyrights to the books and without paying copyright fees or royalties. Kinko’s has more than two hundred stores nationwide and reported $15 million in assets and $3 million in profits for 1989. Basic Books, Harper & Row, John Wiley & Sons, and others (plaintiffs) sued Kinko’s for violation of the Copyright Act of 1976. Plaintiffs owned copyrights to the works copied and sold by Kinko’s and derived substantial income from royalties. They argued that Kinko’s had infringed on their copyrights by copying excerpts from their books and selling the copies to college students for profit. Kinko’s admitted that it had copied excerpts without permission and had sold them in packets to students, but it contended that its actions constituted a fair use of the works in…

Vuitton, a French corporation, manufactures high-quality handbags, luggage, and accessories. Crown Handbags,. a New York corporation, manufactures and distributes ladies’ handbags. Vuitton handbags are sold exclusively in expensive department stores, and distribution is strictly controlled to maintain a certain retail selling price. The Vuitton bags bear a registered trademark and a distinctive design. Crown’s handbags appear identical to the Vuitton bags but are of inferior quality. May Vuitton recover from Crown for manufacturing counterfeit handbags and selling them at a discount? Explain.

Reed, a manager for XYZ Products, issued company checks to pay his personal debts. So that no one in the company would know what he was doing, he disguised the name of the payees. For example, to pay his American Credit Card bill, he issued the XYZ check to “American.” XYZ Products sued the recipients of the checks, such as American Credit Card, demanding that the funds be returned. The trial court ruled against XYZ Products concluding that the Defendant-Payee, American Credit Card, was a holder in due course and thus took the checks free of any claims or defenses. Was the trial court correct in ruling that American Credit Card is a holder in due course? Why? What law is applicable? Can Reed be held criminally liable for his actions? Why or why not? Can Reed be civilly liable for his actions? To whom might Reed be liable and for what? 4. What is the business lesson to be learned from this case? Is this a fair result based on public policy constructs applicable to property…